As already noted, from the standpoint of participation in regional economic development, educational achievement is a key prerequisite. While studies reveal a positive relationship between economic status and indicators of educational achievement such as highest level of schooling completed (ABS/CAEPR 1996), an important shortcoming is their lack of measurement of the quality of education outcomes. For example, age at leaving school or highest level of schooling completed does not necessarily equate with school-leaving grade level achievement. In fact, for many Aboriginal students in remote areas of the Northern Territory, age or grade level is a poor indicator of achievement as many Aboriginal students perform substantially below their age and grade levels in terms of literacy and numeracy competencies (Northern Territory Department of Education [NTDE] 1999). Thus, while data on participation in the education system provide an important indication of access and utilisation, it should be noted that they reveal less about outcomes in terms of demonstrated ability, no matter from what perspective this might be measured.

Source: TRS, Wadeye

In the Northern Territory, outcomes from education are measured using benchmarks according to the Multilevel Assessment Program (MAP). This is a curriculum-based assessment that tests students’ knowledge and skills in numeracy and reading. It is administered annually under separate arrangements for urban and remote Northern Territory schools. The MAP tests are set at various profile levels—two through to four. At Year 3 level, it is expected that most students will be achieving profile level two, while profile level three is the benchmark standard for students in Year 5. These benchmarks represent an agreed standard of performance that professional educators deem to be the minimum level required for students at particular key stages in their educational development in order to make adequate progress. Prior to the tests, teachers make evaluations of each student before assigning them to a particular test level and exemptions can be, and often are, made if teachers believe that students are likely to achieve near zero scores (NTDE 1999: 156). In accordance with Australian government benchmark reporting requirements, eight-year-old and 10-year-old students were tested equating to Years 3 and 5. The results for reading and numeracy testing at TRS are shown in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 respectively for 1999–2001. Clearly, according to these data, students at TRS have consistently performed very poorly in both reading and numeracy, at both Year 3 and Year 5 levels, both in terms of participation in testing and in achievement.

Source: TRS, Wadeye

Reasons for this are properly the concern of the school, including its Indigenous leadership team, together with parents and the community as now represented by the Thamarrurr working groups on families and youth. However, the school advises that MAP results to date need to be interpreted with caution. This is because up until 2001 TRS students were placed in a grade that fitted their development level. As a consequence, children were often two or three grades behind their urban school peers with whom they were compared in MAP testing, with the result that Wadeye students were seen to be ‘failing’, as indicated in the data above. At the end of 2001 a decision was made to align students at TRS with their peer groups. This involved children skipping a grade or two (and in some cases more than two). Thus, 2003 is the first year that children have been in the age appropriate class, and for this reason MAP results may not show any indication of improvement for a few years. Children who are in Year 4 now will be better off by the time they reach Year 7 than the Year 7 children in 2003. Thus, 2002 and 2003 have been transition years towards closer alignment between age and grade level, and the outcome should be more meaningful MAP test comparison in the future.

However, even if this leads to a relative improvement in testing outcomes for TRS students, current data suggest a need to consider the implications of literacy and numeracy levels for planning objectives to the extent that these require a future supply of skilled labour for work in mainstream occupations. One implication of poor school performance is evident in the lack of Aboriginal adults in the region with formal qualifications. The only comprehensive data available on this are from the 2001 Census and these can be used to estimate 2003 levels. On this basis, it is estimated that 16 Aboriginal adults have an advanced diploma, 12 have a certificate level qualification, and the vast majority (97%) have no formal qualification. Judging by the school attendance levels, and the literacy and numeracy levels indicated by the recent MAP performance results shown above, there is little indication that this low level of post-school qualification will substantially alter in the near future. At the same time, much depends on participation and outcomes in vocational education and training.